SMT. SHARADAMMA v. SMT. DEVAMMA

1. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LAKSHMEGOWDA AGED 70 YEARS

2. SRI. KUMARA S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA AGED 48 YEARS

3. SMT. GIRIJA W/O SRINIVASA D/O LAKSHMEGOWDA AGED 41 YEARS R/A KEREBEEDHI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

4. SRI. ASHOK S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA AGED 41 YEARS

5. SRI. RAJEGOWDA S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA AGED 39 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1, 2, 4 AND 5 RESIDING AT SALAGAME VILLAGE AND HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573219 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

SMT. DEVAMMA W/O KARIGOWDA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9046 WP No. 55254 of 2018 D/O BOMMARAYIGOWDA, AGED 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT SALAGAME VILLAGE AND HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573219

SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O JAVAREGOWDA D/O BOMMARAYIGOWDA AGED 66 YEARS RESIDING R/A KEREBEEDHI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116 (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED IN F.D.P. NO.7/2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN AT ANNEXURE- E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The defendant Nos.1 to 5 in FDP No.7/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (henceforth referred to as 'Final Decree Court') have filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 16.11.2018, by which an application (I.A.V) filed by them to drop final decree proceedings by holding that the petitioners therein/plaintiffs were not entitled to schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in view of amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was rejected. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9046 WP No. 55254 of 2018

2. The suit in O.S.No.422/1997 was filed by the daughters/plaintiffs claiming their share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.7/2007. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to drop final decree proceedings by holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties in view of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others vs. Phulavathi and others [(2016) 2 SCC 36] and contended that the plaintiffs being married daughters are not coparceners and were not entitled to claim as coparceners as their father was not alive as on the date of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Trial Court after considering this application held that the plaintiffs were coparceners and were entitled to a share in the suit properties. It also held that the petitioners had filed an application seeking enhancement of their share and thereafter, had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.24516- - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9046 WP No. 55254 of 2018 517/2012 and that this Court in terms of the order dated

26.03.2014 had observed that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share together in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, it held that the right of the plaintiffs to an extent of 2/3rd share together in the suit schedule properties was confirmed by this Court and hence, the defendants cannot claim that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties.

Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 submits that the instant application was justified in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others, supra. However, he does not dispute the fact that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others, supra, is held to be not good law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others [(2020) 9 SCC 1], where it was held that the daughters are also entitled to claim as coparceners provided the suit properties are not partitioned or alienated before 20.12.2004. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9046 WP No. 55254 of 2018

In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Final Decree Court warranting interference by this Court.

Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41